PROPERTY BROKERS INC v LOYNING
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 82-105 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF I O T N F L NA A 1982 PROPERTY BROKERS, I N C . , and VERN SCHOULTE, d / b / a SCHOULTE REALTY, P l a i n t i f f s and A p p e l l a n t s , PALMER L O Y N I N G and ELVA LOYNING, husband and w i f e , D e f e n d a n t s and R e s p o n d e n t s . Appeal from: District Court of t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County o f Carbon Honorable C h a r l e s Luedke, J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For P l a i n t i f f s : C h a r l e s E. S n y d e r , B i l l i n g s , Montana For D e f e n d a n t s : A y e r s and A l t e r o w i t z ; A r t h u r W. A y e r s , Red Lodge, Montana -- Submitted on b r i e f s : Decided: Filed: gEc - 2 jg@ August 1 9 , 1982 December 2 , 1 9 8 2 J u s t i c e Gene B . Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e C o u r t . Mr. The p l a i n t i f f s , r e a l estate brokers, b r o u g h t t h i s act i o n to r e c o v e r c o m m i s s i o n s f o r t h e s a l e of a r a n c h owned by d e f e n d a n t s , the Loynings. Both Court District of County, g r a n t e d parties the moved for Thirteenth summary j u d g m e n t summary Judicial judgment. District for defendants, , The Carbon and p l a i n t i f f s appeal. The L o y n i n g s w i t h one of i n t o a real listing estate the appellants, Property Brokers, their sell entered ranch near Roberts, Montana. Inc., In agreement i n o r d e r to the agreement, P r o p e r t y B r o k e r s was employed " t o s e l l o r e x c h a n g e " t h e p r o p e r t y , and would receive a n 8 p e r c e n t commission under the following circumstances : " I n t h e e v e n t t h a t you o r a n y o t h e r b r o k e r s c o o p e r a t i n g w i t h you, s h a l l f i n d a buyer r e a d y and w i l l i n g t o e n t e r i n t o a d e a l f o r s a i d p r i c e and terms, o r s u c h o t h e r terms and p r i c e I may accept, or t h a t during your as employment you s u p p l y m e w i t h name of or p l a c e m e i n c o n t a c t w i t h a b u y e r t o or t h r o u g h whom a t a n y time w i t h i n 1 8 0 d a y s a f t e r t h e term i n a t i o n o f s a i d employment I may s e l l o r conv e y s a i d p r o p e r t y , I h e r e b y a g r e e t o pay you i n c a s h f o r y o u r s e r v i c e s a commission e q u a l i n amount t o 8 p e r c e n t of t h e a b o v e - s t a t e d selling price." The agreement w a s entered e x p i r e J u n e 25, 1980. i n t o J u n e 25, 1979, and was to W i t h t h e 180-day g r a c e p e r i o d , t h e b r o k e r was s t i l l e n t i t l e d t o a c o m m i s s i o n i f a b u y e r he found p u r c h a s e d t h e p r o p e r t y p r i o r t o December 2 2 , 1 9 8 0 . Vern S c h o u l t e , t h e o t h e r a p p e l l a n t and a b r o k e r c o o p e r a t i n g w i t h P r o p e r t y B r o k e r s , showed t h e L o y n i n g r a n c h t o J o h n and Anyce Gerhardt. The G e r h a r d t s and L o y n i n g s e n t e r e d agreement $1,000 on was October given The b u y / s e l l 23, to 1979. Schoulte An earnest to into a buy/sell money hold deposit until p r o p e r t y n e a r S i d n e y , Montana. the take tenants. closing. a g r e e m e n t was made e n t i r e l y c o n t i n g e n t upon t h e s a l e of t h e G e r h a r d t s ' Gerhardts of would The b u y / s e l l possession agreement, s i o n , was t o e x p i r e March 3 1 , 1 9 8 0 . of the Loyning including the If Meanwhile, ranch as tenancy provi- a n o t h e r b u y e r was found prior to March 31, 1980, t h e G e r h a r d t s would have seventy-two hours t o f i n a l i z e t h e i r agreement. were near S i d n e y b e f o r e March 3 1 , 1 9 8 0 , and no o t h e r b u y e r was f o u n d . The Gerhardts not to property The able sell their Loynings allowed t h e G e r h a r d t s t o s t a y a t t h e i r ranch a s t e n a n t s beyond t h e March 31 deadline. On A u g u s t 6 1980, however, the $ 1 , 0 0 0 e a r n e s t money d e p o s i t was f o r f e i t e d . On December property near 31, 1980, Sidney, the Gerhardts were and then eventually to able sold buy the their Loyning On J a n u a r y 2 9 , 1 9 8 1 , t h e G e r h a r d t s f i n a l i z e d t h e p u r c h a s e ranch. o f t h e Loyning r a n c h . The o n l y i s s u e on r e v i e w is w h e t h e r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d by g r a n t i n g a summary judgment t o the Loynings, t h e r e b y denying b r o k e r commissions t o a p p e l l a n t s . Because appellants to failed supply a ready and willing b u y e r , and b e c a u s e t h e s a l e of t h e Loyning p r o p e r t y d i d n o t o c c u r w i t h i n t h e t i m e p r e s c r i b e d by t h e l i s t i n g a g r e e m e n t , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s judgment m u s t be a f f i r m e d . A r e a l e s t a t e b r o k e r is e n t i t l e d t o a commission when he h a s , in pursuance procured a of his employment purchaser ready, and able, within and terms and c o n d i t i o n s c o n t r a c t of Diehl ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 1 7 3 Mont. i n Diehl sale" the t o mean 3 7 2 , 567 P.2d that a Associates, & 930. broker specified, to p u r c h a s e willing s e l l e r ' s p r o p e r t y on t h e employment. time the specified Inc. v. the i n the Houtchens T h i s r u l e was i n t e r p r e t e d employed to "sell or effect a ( a s is t h e c a s e h e r e ) d o e s n o t e a r n h i s commission u n t i l purchase completed. price is paid, The o n e e x c e p t i o n title to is this conveyed and interpretation b r o k e r may s t i l l be e n t i t l e d t o a commission i f the sale is t h a t a t h e s a l e is n o t c o m p l e t e d b e c a u s e of w r o n g f u l a c t s o r i n t e r f e r e n c e by t h e s e l l e r . See Associated Mont. --- Here, within the , Agency of 625 P.2d the Bozeman, Inc. 3 8 , 38 S t . R e p . Pasha s i m p l y d i d n o t meet (1981), -- .- 344. appellants v. - -- their obligations time p r e s c r i b e d by t h e l i s t i n g a g r e e m e n t . They d i d not find a r e a d y and w i l l i n g b u y e r within the t i m e prescribed. nor did they e f f e c t a sale T h e r e is no claim o n a p p e a l t h a t t h e sellers wrongfully i n t e r f e r e d w i t h t h e sale. I n F l i n d e r s v. Gilbert ( 1 9 6 3 ) r 1 4 1 Mont. 442, 3 7 8 P.2d 385, w e n o t e d t h a t a b u y e r is n e i t h e r r e a d y n o r w i l l i n g i f t h e b u y e r c a n n o t make a n o f f e r u n t i l 3 7 8 P.2d sells o t h e r property. he F-i n -l - d e r s , T h i s d i c t a is c o m m e n s u r a t e w i t h t h e g e n e r a l l y a t 387. a c c e p t e d r u l e t h a t a b u y e r is f i n a n c i a l l y " a b l e " o n l y when h e c a n command t h e n e c e s s a r y funds t o complete t h e purchase w i t h i n t h e t i m e a l l o w e d by t h e o f f e r . ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 5 Wash.App. Here, the near March 3 1 , 8 2 6 , 552 P.2d b u y e r s were n o t Loyning p r o p e r t y property See, eg., 1 9 1 , and cases c i t e d t h e r e i n . u n t i l December 3 1 , Sidney. 1980, when they sold had expired on The G e r h a r d t s were t h e r e a f t e r u n d e r no o b l i g a - 1980. 1 9 8 0 , and a As they sold t h e i r property in t h e 1 8 0 - d a y g r a c e p e r i o d e n d e d December 2 2 , 1 9 8 0 . general rule, courts have strictly l i m i t s s e t down i n l i s t i n g a g r e e m e n t s . followed Inc., N.W.2d 879; B r a c k e t t v. S c h a f e r ( 1 9 5 3 ) r 4 1 Wash.2d 294. An indicate parties. exception may a r i s e that time the Snyder v. nothing Therefore, introduced v. the in in the spite Loynings if of the to a b l e t o make t h e p u r c h a s e , listing surrounding have suggests the fact been 539, 8 2 8 , 252 P.2d circumstances waived by 5 4 7 P.2d such a waiver that appellant eventual buyers, c a n n o t claim a c o m m i s s i o n b e c a u s e the the ( 1 9 7 6 ) r 274 O r . record time Homan ( 1 9 8 0 ) , 206 Neb. 7 4 9 , 294 provisions Schram the S e e A n n o t . 27 ALR2d 1 3 4 8 e t s e q ; The N e b r a s k a n s , after their More i m p o r t a n t l y , t h e l i s t i n g a g r e e m e n t had e x p i r e d J u n e Sidney. Here, the agreement buy/sell The to p u r c h a s e financially able t i o n t o buy t h e L o y n i n g p r o p e r t y i f 25, Record R e a l t y , I n c . v . H u l l the the 102. occurred. Schoulte appellants t h e b u y e r s w e r e n o t r e a d y and and t h e p r o p e r t y was n o t s o l d , u n t i l agreement and the 180-day grace period had expired. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t / W e concur: % e ea , aY, 4 Chief Justice
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
